16份无芒雀麦种质资源生产性能与营养品质的综合评价

黄薇; 常巍; 余淑艳; 李小云; 高雪芹; 伏兵哲

doi:10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2021-0246

16份无芒雀麦种质资源生产性能与营养品质的综合评价

1.
宁夏大学农学院，宁夏银川 750021
2.
宁夏草牧业工程技术研究中心，宁夏银川 750021

基金项目: 西北土地退化与生态恢复国家重点实验室培育基地开放课题(2018KF08)；宁夏青年科技人才托举工程(TJGC2018083)；宁夏牧草育种专项(2019NYYZ04)

摘要: 为了筛选出生产性能与营养品质表现优良的无芒雀麦(Bromus inermis)种质材料，测量和分析了国内外16份无芒雀麦种质资源生产性能和营养品质的相关指标，并运用聚类分析、灰色关联度分析进行综合评价。结果表明：不同无芒雀麦种质材料之间生产性能与营养品质差异显著(P < 0.05)，其中Q6、Q8、Q2的鲜草产量与Q16、Q4的干草产量显著高于其他种质材料(P < 0.05)，可作为追求产草量的基础材料利用；Q16粗蛋白含量高，中性洗涤纤维含量低，牧草消化率高，营养品质好；Q2、Q4、Q10、Q14叶茎比显著高于其他种质材料(P < 0.05)。聚类分析将16份种质材料聚为4类，聚类结果与原产地关系较小。根据灰色关联度分析，叶茎比、干草产量、粗灰分、粗蛋白在无芒雀麦生产性能与营养品质综合评价系统中权重最大，可作为无芒雀麦品种评价和筛选时的关键性状；Q6、Q4、Q10、Q16、Q2、Q8与理想品系关联系数最大，综合表现最好，可为无芒雀麦品种改良和新品种培育提供基础材料。

关键词:

English

Comprehensive evaluation of production performance and nutritional quality of 16 Bromus inermis germplasm resources

1.
College of Agriculture, Ningxia University, Yinchuan 750021, Ningxia, China
2.
Ningxia Grassland and Animal Husbandry Engineering Technology Research Center, Yinchuan 750021, Ningxia, China

Received Date: 2021-04-21
Accepted Date: 2021-06-15
Available Online: 2021-08-08
Publish Date: 2021-11-14

Abstract: To select the Bromus inermis germplasm materials with excellent performance and nutritional quality, performance and nutritional quality indicators of 16 germplasm resources were measured and analyzed, and a comprehensive evaluation was performed using gray relational and cluster analyses. The results showed that there were significant differences in the production performance and nutritional quality of the different B. inermis germplasm materials (P < 0.05). The fresh yield of Q6, Q8, and Q2 and the hay yield of Q16 and Q4 were significantly higher than the other germplasm materials (P < 0.05), which can be used as basic materials for obtaining high grass yield. Q16 had high crude protein content, low acid detergent fiber content, high forage digestibility, and excellent nutritional quality. The leaf-stem ratios of Q2, Q4, Q10, and Q14 were significantly higher than those of the other germplasm materials (P < 0.05). The cluster analysis divided the 16 germplasm materials into four categories, and the clustering results had little relationship with the place of origin. Based on the gray correlation analysis, the leaf-stem ratio, hay yield, crude ash, and crude protein had the largest weights in the comprehensive evaluation of production performance and nutritional quality of B. inermis, which can be used as key traits in the evaluation and selection of B. inermis varieties. Q6, Q4, Q10, Q16, Q2, and Q8 had the highest correlation coefficients with ideal strains and the best comprehensive performance, and could provide the basic materials for the improvement and breeding of new B. inermis varieties.

Keywords:

HTML全文

参考文献

[1]	ANTONOVA E V, FUCHS J, RÖDER M S. Influence of chronic man-made pollution on Bromus inermis genome size. Russian Journal of Ecology, 2020, 51(4): 337-344. doi: 10.1134/S1067413620040025
[2]	MOZHGAN A, MOHAMMAD M M, SAEIDNIA F, SAJED B, AGHAFAKHR M. Genetic and physiological aspects of drought tolerance in smooth bromegrass. Crop Science, 2019, 59(6): 2601-2607. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2019.05.0288
[3]	张希山, 代连义, 王志杰, 祖丽菲亚, 莎丽. 禾草饲料之王: 无芒雀麦. 新疆畜牧业, 2002, 12(4): 28-29. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-4889.2002.04.014 ZHANG X S, DAI L Y, WANG Z J, Zulifeiya, SHA L. The king of grass and fodder: Bromus inermis Leyss. Xin Jiang Xu Mu Ye, 2002, 12(4): 28-29. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-4889.2002.04.014
[4]	黄帆, 李俊, 刘磊, 师文贵, 李鸿雁, 李志勇. 无芒雀麦组织培养再生体系的建立. 植物生理学报, 2018, 54(5): 783-789. HUANG F, LI J, LIU L, SHI W G, LI H Y, LI Z Y. Tissue culture and regeneration of Bromus inermis. Plant Physiology Journal, 2018, 54(5): 783-789.
[5]	刘永新, 刘英杰, 周勤, 高磊, 方辉, 韩刚, 王玉芬, 姜秀凤, 刘海金. 牙鲆主要生长性状与体质量的灰色关联度分析. 中国水产科学, 2014, 21(2): 205-213. LIU Y X, LIU Y J, ZHOU Q, GAO L, FANG H, HAN G, WANG Y F, JIANG X F, LIU H J. Grey relational analysis between main growth traits and body weight in Japanese flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus). Journal of Fishery Sciences of China, 2014, 21(2): 205-213.
[6]	丁明亮, 赵红, 浦秋红, 崔永祯, 李宏生, 顾坚, 田玉仙, 杨木军, 李绍祥. 应用灰色关联度分析法对远缘杂交选育的小麦新品系评价. 西南农业学报, 2018, 31(2): 217-222. DING M L, ZHAO H, PU Q H, CUI Y Z, LI H S, GU J, TIAN Y X, YANG M J, LI S X. Multi-factorial evaluation of new wheat lines from distant hybridization by grey relational analysis method. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 31(2): 217-222.
[7]	于树涛, 于国庆, 孙泓希, 王虹, 尤淑丽, 于洪波. 东北主栽花生品种农艺性状及品质性状分析. 分子植物育种, 2019, 17(10): 3364-3370. YU S T, YU G Q, SUN H X, WANG H, YOU S L, YU H B. Analysis of agronomic characters and quality characters of the main peanut varieties in northeast china. Molecular Plant Breeding, 2019, 17(10): 3364-3370.
[8]	那亚, 渠晖, 花梅, 李峰, 乌仁曹, 李雪, 陶雅. 土默川平原不同玉米品种青贮饲料的品质比较. 中国草地学报, 2021, 43(1): 90-95. NA Y, QU H, HUA M, LI F, WU R C, LI X, TAO Y. Quality comparison of different corn varieties used as silage in Tumed Plain. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2021, 43(1): 90-95.
[9]	贾小平, 袁玺垒, 陆平, 范丙友, 黄华, 戴凌峰. 中国71个谷子种质资源的灰色关联度分析及综合评价. 种子, 2017, 36(9): 63-66. JIA X P, YUAN X L, LU P, FAN B Y, HUANG H, DAI L F. Grey incidence analysis and comprehensive evaluation of 71 millet germplasm resources in China. Seed, 2017, 36(9): 63-66.
[10]	郑巨云, 王俊铎, 龚照龙, 梁亚军, 张泽良, 艾先涛, 郭江平, 莫明, 李雪源. 棉花品种资源花铃期抗旱性鉴定与评价. 干旱地区农业研究, 2021, 39(2): 150-163. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2021.02.20 ZHENG J Y, WANG J D, GONG Z L, LIANG Y J, ZHANG Z L, AI X T, GUO J P, MO M, LI X Y. Identification and comprehensive assessment of drought resistance of upland cotton variety resources during flower and boll stage. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2021, 39(2): 150-163. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2021.02.20
[11]	伏兵哲, 高雪芹, 高永发, 李东宁, 张龙, 张蓉. 21个苜蓿品种主要农艺性状关联分析与综合评价. 草业学报, 2015, 24(11): 174-182. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2014541 FU B Z, GAO X Q, GAO Y F, LI D N, ZHANG L, ZHANG R. Correlation analysis of the main agronomic traits and performance of 21 alfalfa varieties. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(11): 174-182. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2014541
[12]	肖逸, 杨忠富, 聂刚, 韩佳婷, 帅杨, 张新全. 12个多花黑麦草品种(系)在成都平原的生产性能和营养价值综合评价. 草业学报, 2021, 30(5): 174-185. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2020447 XIAO Y, YANG Z F, NIE G, HAN J T, SHUAI Y, ZHANG X Q. Multi-trait evaluation of yield and nutritive value of 12 Lolium multiflorum varieties or lines in Chengdu Plain. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(5): 174-185. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2020447
[13]	郑敏娜, 李荫藩, 梁秀芝, 薛龙飞. 晋北地区引种苜蓿品种的灰色关联度分析与综合评价. 草地学报, 2014, 22(3): 631-637. ZHENG M N, LI Y F, LIANG X Z, XUE L F. Relation grade analysis of grey theory and comprehensive evaluation of introduced alfalfa in the north of Shanxi province. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2014, 22(3): 631-637.
[14]	MENG L, WANG C, ZHANG J Q. Heat injury risk assessment for single-cropping rice in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River under climate change. Journal of Meteorological Research, 2016, 30(3): 426-443. doi: 10.1007/s13351-016-5186-z
[15]	ZHOU B, YANG H. Economic analysis of limited water irrigation on wheat yield. Journal of Coastal Research, 2020, 104(sp1): 637-640.
[16]	WANG N, XING Y Y, WANG X K. Exploring options for improving potato productivity through reducing crop yield gap in Loess Plateau of China based on grey correlation analysis. Sustainability, 2019, 11(20): 5621. doi: 10.3390/su11205621
[17]	张丽英. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术(第四版). 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2016. ZHANG L Y. Feed Analysis and Quality Test Technology (Fourth Edition). Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2016.
[18]	ROHWEDER D A, BARNES R F, JORGENSEN N. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science, 1978, 47(3): 747-759. doi: 10.2527/jas1978.473747x
[19]	郭瑞林. 作物灰色育种学. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1988: 26-40. GUO R L. Crop Grey Breeding. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 1988: 26-40.
[20]	郑伟, 朱进忠, 加娜尔古丽. 不同混播方式豆禾混播草地生产性能的综合评价. 草业学报, 2012, 21(6): 242-251. doi: 10.11686/cyxb20120632 ZHENG W, ZHU J Z, Jianaerguli. A comprehensive evaluation of the productive performance of legume-grass mixtures under different mixed sowing patterns. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2012, 21(6): 242-251. doi: 10.11686/cyxb20120632
[21]	贺文骅, 崔国文, 崔新, 刘省勇, 李冰. 紫花苜蓿与无芒雀麦不同混播比例对青贮品质的影响. 草地学报, 2017, 25(2): 407-414. HE W H, CUI G W, CUI X, LIU S Y, LI B. Effect of mix-sowing ratios of Medicago sativa L. and Bromus inermis Leyss. on silage quality. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2017, 25(2): 407-414.
[22]	宫珂, 靳瑰丽, 李陈建, 岳永寰, 王惠宁, 韩万强. 天山北坡野生无芒雀麦的表型性状. 生态学杂志, 2019, 38(9): 2615-2621. GONG K, JIN G L, LI C J, YUE Y H, WANG H N, HAN W Q. Phenotypic traits of Bromus inermis on the northern slope of Tianshan Mountains. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2019, 38(9): 2615-2621.
[23]	张凡凡, 于磊, 马春晖, 张前兵, 鲁为华. 绿洲区滴灌条件下施磷对紫花苜蓿生产性能及品质的影响. 草业学报, 2015, 24(10): 175-182. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2014467 ZHANG F F, YU L, MA C H, ZHANG Q B, LU W H. Effect of phosphorus application under drip irrigation on the productivity and quality of alfalfa in Northern Xinjiang. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(10): 175-182. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2014467
[24]	徐丽君, 杨桂霞, 陈宝瑞, 辛晓平, 乌恩奇, 青格勒, 朱树声. 不同苜蓿(品)种营养价值的比较. 草业科学, 2013, 30(4): 556-570. XU L J, YANG G X, CHEN B R, XIN X P, Wuenqi, Qinggele, ZHU S S. Comprehensive evaluation of nutritional values of different alfalfa species and varieties. Pratacultural Science, 2013, 30(4): 556-570.
[25]	白玉婷, 卫智军, 闫瑞瑞, 乌仁其其格, 代景忠, 王天乐, 姚静, 孙世贤. 施肥对羊草割草地牧草产量及品质的影响. 中国草地学报, 2017, 39(4): 60-66. BAI Y T, WEI Z J, YAN R R, Wurenqiqige, DAI J Z, WANG T L, YAO J, SUN S X. Effects of fertilizer application on the yield of forage and nutrient content in Leymus chinensis mowing meadow. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2017, 39(4): 60-66.
[26]	马啸, 周朝杰, 张成林, 孙铭, 郭志慧, 王小利, 张建波. 扁穗雀麦种质资源形态和农艺性状变异的初步分析. 草地学报, 2015, 23(5): 1048-1056. MA X, ZHOU C J, ZHANG C L, SUN M, GUO Z H, WANG X L, ZHANG J B. Patterns of morphological variation and agronomic traits in a worldwide sample of prairie grass germplasm. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2015, 23(5): 1048-1056.
[27]	孙铭, 雷雄, 张新全, 张成林, 伍文丹, 赵文达, 杨晓鹏, 马啸. 扁穗雀麦优良品系数量性状的变异分析及遗传参数评估. 草业学报, 2018, 27(1): 131-141. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2017260 SUN M, LEI X, ZHANG X Q, ZHANG C L, WU W D, ZHAO W D, YANG X P, MA X. Assessment of genetic variability in prairie grass. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(1): 131-141. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2017260
[28]	杨成前, 雷美艳, 杨天建, 余中莲, 全健, 杨娟, 蒲盛才. 白术栽培群体的主要农艺性状相关性及聚类分析. 分子植物育种, 2019, 17(17): 5852-5859. YANG C Q, LEI M Y, YANG T J, YU Z L, QUAN J, YANG J, PU S C. Agronomic character and cluster analysis in cultivated populations of Atractylodes macrocephala. Molecular Plant Breeding, 2019, 17(17): 5852-5859.

图 1 不同无芒雀麦株高和茎粗比较

不同小写字母表示同一指标品种间差异显著(P < 0.05)；种质编号同表1；下同。

Figure 1. Comparison of plant height and stem diameter of different Bromus inermis materials

Different lowercase letters indicate a significant difference between varieties at the 0.05 level (P < 0.05); the germplasm code are as shown in Table 1; this is applicable for the following tables and figures as well.

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 不同无芒雀麦鲜草产量和干草产量比较

Figure 2. Comparison of fresh yield and hay yield of different Bromus inermis materials

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 不同无芒雀麦叶茎比比较

Figure 3. Comparison of the leaf to stem ratios of different Bromus inermis materials

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 无芒雀麦种质材料系统聚类分析

Figure 4. Hierarchical cluster analysis of Bromus inermis germplasm materials

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 无芒雀麦种质材料名称及来源

Table 1 Names and source of Bromus inermis

编号 Code	材料来源 Source	原产地 Origin
Q1	国家种质牧草中期库 National Forage Germplasm Bank	中国锡林郭勒 Xilingol, China
Q2	内蒙古草原站 Inner Mongolia Grassland Station	中国新疆 Xinjiang, China
Q3	国家种质牧草中期库 National Forage Germplasm Bank	中国陕西 Shaanxi, China
Q4	野外采集 Field collection	中国宁夏原州区 Ningxia Yuanzhou District, China
Q5	国家种质牧草中期库 National Forage Germplasm Bank	中国甘肃 Gansu, China
Q6	国家种质牧草中期库 National Forage Germplasm Bank	中国白旗 Baiqi, China
Q7	内蒙古农业大学 Inner Mongolia Agricultural University	中国锡林郭勒 Xilingol, China
Q8	美国 United States	美国 United States
Q9	国家种质牧草中期库 National Forage Germplasm Bank	中国新疆 Xinjiang, China
Q10	国家种质牧草中期库 National Forage Germplasm Bank	美国 United States
Q11	国家种质牧草中期库 National Forage Germplasm Bank	中国宁夏 Ningxia, China
Q12	国家种质牧草中期库 National Forage Germplasm Bank	中国呼伦贝尔 Hulunbuir, China
Q13	国家种质牧草中期库 National Forage Germplasm Bank	中国贵州 Guizhou, China
Q14	野外采集 Field collection	中国宁夏隆德县 Ningxia Longde County, China
Q15	野外采集 Field collection	中国宁夏六盘山 Ningxia Liupanshan, China
Q16	野外采集 Field collection	中国宁夏彭阳县 Ningxia Pengyang County, China

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 不同无芒雀麦营养成分比较

Table 2 Comparison of nutritional components of different Bromus inermis materials

种质编号 Germplasm code	粗蛋白 Crude protein/%	粗脂肪 Ether extract/%	中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber/%	酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber/%	粗灰分 Crude ash/%	相对饲喂价值 Relative feed value
Q1	12.50 ± 0.27g	1.69 ± 0.03cd	51.28 ± 0.06de	34.14 ± 0.06a	8.47 ± 0.03def	113.02 ± 0.05def
Q2	15.31 ± 0.14bc	1.69 ± 0.03cd	51.73 ± 0.28cde	32.13 ± 0.20cde	9.11 ± 0.14bcde	114.87 ± 0.54abcde
Q3	14.93 ± 0.10bcd	1.76 ± 0.08abcd	51.54 ± 0.06cde	30.69 ± 0.31f	8.67 ± 0.23cdef	117.32 ± 0.35ab
Q4	14.25 ± 0.15cdef	1.71 ± 0.03cd	52.17 ± 0.18bcd	31.63 ± 0.43def	9.44 ± 0.15bc	114.58 ± 0.65abcde
Q5	14.50 ± 0.24bcde	1.90 ± 0.03a	52.89 ± 0.15ab	32.42 ± 0.30bcde	9.21 ± 0.12bcd	111.96 ± 0.69ef
Q6	13.18 ± 0.06fg	1.86 ± 0.02ab	51.99 ± 0.45bcd	32.28 ± 0.30bcde	7.52 ± 0.14g	114.09 ± 0.86cdef
Q7	13.85 ± 0.47def	1.72 ± 0.03bcd	52.88 ± 0.35ab	30.68 ± 0.27f	9.22 ± 0.30bcd	114.36 ± 1.06bcdef
Q8	14.93 ± 0.45bcd	1.45 ± 0.03e	51.86 ± 0.30bcde	31.58 ± 0.21def	8.98 ± 0.26cde	115.33 ± 0.96abcd
Q9	14.94 ± 0.24bcd	1.74 ± 0.04bcd	51.87 ± 0.18bcde	32.55 ± 0.28bcd	8.52 ± 0.26def	113.96 ± 0.30def
Q10	14.36 ± 0.25cdef	1.83 ± 0.02abc	52.51 ± 0.28bc	31.13 ± 0.24ef	8.29 ± 0.16ef	114.52 ± 0.62abcde
Q11	14.84 ± 0.35bcd	1.81 ± 0.03abc	52.35 ± 0.03bcd	33.39 ± 0.02abc	9.09 ± 0.14bcde	111.76 ± 0.08f
Q12	14.24 ± 0.03cdef	1.79 ± 0.03abcd	53.71 ± 0.32a	33.54 ± 0.31ab	8.86 ± 0.13cdef	108.73 ± 0.50g
Q13	15.73 ± 0.13b	1.89 ± 0.03a	51.34 ± 0.16de	31.27 ± 0.24def	9.29 ± 0.13bcd	116.94 ± 0.55abc
Q14	13.59 ± 0.17efg	1.90 ± 0.03a	51.37 ± 0.22cde	33.23 ± 0.18abc	10.48 ± 0.15a	114.13 ± 0.49cdef
Q15	14.82 ± 0.10bcd	1.66 ± 0.06d	51.62 ± 0.06cde	32.42 ± 0.10bcde	8.03 ± 0.13f	114.69 ± 0.26abcde
Q16	17.70 ± 0.14a	1.80 ± 0.01abcd	50.72 ± 0.28e	31.90 ± 0.37def	9.92 ± 0.10ab	117.48 ± 0.77a
同列不同小写字母表示存在显著差异(P < 0.05)。　Different lowercase letters indicate a significant difference at the 0.05 level.

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 参试品种与理想参考品种的关联系数

Table 3 Correlation coefficient of experimental varieties and reference variety

种质编号 Germplasm code	X₁	X₂	X₃	X₄	X₅	X₆	X₇	X₈	X₉	X₁₀	X₁₁
Q1	0.7269	0.6670	0.6341	0.5051	0.5000	0.3507	0.5872	0.9351	0.6100	0.5865	0.8071
Q2	0.5838	0.7025	0.9999	0.8248	0.6180	0.5402	0.5927	0.8907	0.7780	0.4764	0.8773
Q3	0.6278	0.4882	0.4671	0.7105	0.4643	0.5034	0.6892	0.9092	0.9981	0.5448	0.9920
Q4	0.7991	0.5468	0.9803	0.6627	0.9795	0.4484	0.6087	0.8505	0.8407	0.4391	0.8657
Q5	0.4712	0.6464	0.5594	0.3510	0.3334	0.4668	0.9919	0.7947	0.7472	0.4644	0.7716
Q6	0.7677	0.7035	0.4187	1.0000	0.6904	0.3829	0.8807	0.8666	0.7617	1.0000	0.8460
Q7	1.0000	0.4444	0.5720	0.6463	0.4667	0.4217	0.6313	0.7949	1.0000	0.4626	0.8563
Q8	0.7318	0.7722	0.6976	0.8256	0.6797	0.5027	0.4030	0.8777	0.8467	0.4943	0.8966
Q9	0.6311	1.0000	0.5814	0.5731	0.5083	0.5037	0.6522	0.8776	0.7333	0.5752	0.8415
Q10	0.8313	0.6020	0.8908	0.6627	0.6471	0.4567	0.8096	0.8224	0.9152	0.6332	0.8628
Q11	0.7596	0.5455	0.4199	0.6197	0.6930	0.4947	0.7765	0.8361	0.6610	0.4788	0.7652
Q12	0.6711	0.6400	0.5011	0.4608	0.6888	0.4474	0.7395	0.7404	0.6497	0.5132	0.6805
Q13	0.6113	0.6305	0.6406	0.5816	0.4699	0.5874	0.9654	0.9290	0.8929	0.4551	0.9722
Q14	0.5312	0.4413	0.8652	0.4899	0.5760	0.4054	1.0001	0.9262	0.6740	0.3599	0.8476
Q15	0.7275	0.5439	0.5644	0.6989	0.6449	0.4937	0.5574	0.9008	0.7464	0.7168	0.8701
Q16	0.4620	0.3821	0.6449	0.7059	1.0000	1.0000	0.6900	1.0000	0.8050	0.3967	1.0000
权重Weight	0.0751	0.1051	0.1440	0.1093	0.1429	0.1285	0.1012	0.0093	0.0395	0.1287	0.0164
X₁：株高；X₂：茎粗；X₃：叶茎比；X₄：鲜草产量；X₅：干草产量；X₆：粗蛋白；X₇：粗脂肪；X₈：中性洗涤纤维；X₉：酸性洗涤纤维；X₁₀：粗灰分；X₁₁：相对饲喂价值。　X₁: Plant height; X₂: Stem diameter; X₃: Leaf-stem ratio; X₄: Fresh yield; X₅: Hay yield; X₆: Crudeprotein; X₇: Etherextract; X₈: Neutral detergentfiber; X₉: Acid detergentfiber; X₁₀: Crudeash; X₁₁: Relativefeed value.

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 参试品种加权关联度与排序

Table 4 Weight association and rank of experimental varieties

种质编号 Germplasm code	加权关联度 Weighted gray correlation	序位 Sequence
Q1	0.5687	15
Q2	0.6842	5
Q3	0.5784	14
Q4	0.7021	2
Q5	0.5396	16
Q6	0.7189	1
Q7	0.5801	13
Q8	0.6492	6
Q9	0.6272	7
Q10	0.6989	3
Q11	0.5918	11
Q12	0.5807	12
Q13	0.6267	8
Q14	0.5955	10
Q15	0.6258	9
Q16	0.6947	4

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(28)

[1]	ANTONOVA E V, FUCHS J, RÖDER M S. Influence of chronic man-made pollution on Bromus inermis genome size. Russian Journal of Ecology, 2020, 51(4): 337-344. doi: 10.1134/S1067413620040025
[2]	MOZHGAN A, MOHAMMAD M M, SAEIDNIA F, SAJED B, AGHAFAKHR M. Genetic and physiological aspects of drought tolerance in smooth bromegrass. Crop Science, 2019, 59(6): 2601-2607. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2019.05.0288
[3]	张希山, 代连义, 王志杰, 祖丽菲亚, 莎丽. 禾草饲料之王: 无芒雀麦. 新疆畜牧业, 2002, 12(4): 28-29. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-4889.2002.04.014 ZHANG X S, DAI L Y, WANG Z J, Zulifeiya, SHA L. The king of grass and fodder: Bromus inermis Leyss. Xin Jiang Xu Mu Ye, 2002, 12(4): 28-29. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-4889.2002.04.014
[4]	黄帆, 李俊, 刘磊, 师文贵, 李鸿雁, 李志勇. 无芒雀麦组织培养再生体系的建立. 植物生理学报, 2018, 54(5): 783-789. HUANG F, LI J, LIU L, SHI W G, LI H Y, LI Z Y. Tissue culture and regeneration of Bromus inermis. Plant Physiology Journal, 2018, 54(5): 783-789.
[5]	刘永新, 刘英杰, 周勤, 高磊, 方辉, 韩刚, 王玉芬, 姜秀凤, 刘海金. 牙鲆主要生长性状与体质量的灰色关联度分析. 中国水产科学, 2014, 21(2): 205-213. LIU Y X, LIU Y J, ZHOU Q, GAO L, FANG H, HAN G, WANG Y F, JIANG X F, LIU H J. Grey relational analysis between main growth traits and body weight in Japanese flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus). Journal of Fishery Sciences of China, 2014, 21(2): 205-213.
[6]	丁明亮, 赵红, 浦秋红, 崔永祯, 李宏生, 顾坚, 田玉仙, 杨木军, 李绍祥. 应用灰色关联度分析法对远缘杂交选育的小麦新品系评价. 西南农业学报, 2018, 31(2): 217-222. DING M L, ZHAO H, PU Q H, CUI Y Z, LI H S, GU J, TIAN Y X, YANG M J, LI S X. Multi-factorial evaluation of new wheat lines from distant hybridization by grey relational analysis method. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 31(2): 217-222.
[7]	于树涛, 于国庆, 孙泓希, 王虹, 尤淑丽, 于洪波. 东北主栽花生品种农艺性状及品质性状分析. 分子植物育种, 2019, 17(10): 3364-3370. YU S T, YU G Q, SUN H X, WANG H, YOU S L, YU H B. Analysis of agronomic characters and quality characters of the main peanut varieties in northeast china. Molecular Plant Breeding, 2019, 17(10): 3364-3370.
[8]	那亚, 渠晖, 花梅, 李峰, 乌仁曹, 李雪, 陶雅. 土默川平原不同玉米品种青贮饲料的品质比较. 中国草地学报, 2021, 43(1): 90-95. NA Y, QU H, HUA M, LI F, WU R C, LI X, TAO Y. Quality comparison of different corn varieties used as silage in Tumed Plain. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2021, 43(1): 90-95.
[9]	贾小平, 袁玺垒, 陆平, 范丙友, 黄华, 戴凌峰. 中国71个谷子种质资源的灰色关联度分析及综合评价. 种子, 2017, 36(9): 63-66. JIA X P, YUAN X L, LU P, FAN B Y, HUANG H, DAI L F. Grey incidence analysis and comprehensive evaluation of 71 millet germplasm resources in China. Seed, 2017, 36(9): 63-66.
[10]	郑巨云, 王俊铎, 龚照龙, 梁亚军, 张泽良, 艾先涛, 郭江平, 莫明, 李雪源. 棉花品种资源花铃期抗旱性鉴定与评价. 干旱地区农业研究, 2021, 39(2): 150-163. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2021.02.20 ZHENG J Y, WANG J D, GONG Z L, LIANG Y J, ZHANG Z L, AI X T, GUO J P, MO M, LI X Y. Identification and comprehensive assessment of drought resistance of upland cotton variety resources during flower and boll stage. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2021, 39(2): 150-163. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2021.02.20
[11]	伏兵哲, 高雪芹, 高永发, 李东宁, 张龙, 张蓉. 21个苜蓿品种主要农艺性状关联分析与综合评价. 草业学报, 2015, 24(11): 174-182. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2014541 FU B Z, GAO X Q, GAO Y F, LI D N, ZHANG L, ZHANG R. Correlation analysis of the main agronomic traits and performance of 21 alfalfa varieties. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(11): 174-182. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2014541
[12]	肖逸, 杨忠富, 聂刚, 韩佳婷, 帅杨, 张新全. 12个多花黑麦草品种(系)在成都平原的生产性能和营养价值综合评价. 草业学报, 2021, 30(5): 174-185. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2020447 XIAO Y, YANG Z F, NIE G, HAN J T, SHUAI Y, ZHANG X Q. Multi-trait evaluation of yield and nutritive value of 12 Lolium multiflorum varieties or lines in Chengdu Plain. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(5): 174-185. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2020447
[13]	郑敏娜, 李荫藩, 梁秀芝, 薛龙飞. 晋北地区引种苜蓿品种的灰色关联度分析与综合评价. 草地学报, 2014, 22(3): 631-637. ZHENG M N, LI Y F, LIANG X Z, XUE L F. Relation grade analysis of grey theory and comprehensive evaluation of introduced alfalfa in the north of Shanxi province. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2014, 22(3): 631-637.
[14]	MENG L, WANG C, ZHANG J Q. Heat injury risk assessment for single-cropping rice in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River under climate change. Journal of Meteorological Research, 2016, 30(3): 426-443. doi: 10.1007/s13351-016-5186-z
[15]	ZHOU B, YANG H. Economic analysis of limited water irrigation on wheat yield. Journal of Coastal Research, 2020, 104(sp1): 637-640.
[16]	WANG N, XING Y Y, WANG X K. Exploring options for improving potato productivity through reducing crop yield gap in Loess Plateau of China based on grey correlation analysis. Sustainability, 2019, 11(20): 5621. doi: 10.3390/su11205621
[17]	张丽英. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术(第四版). 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2016. ZHANG L Y. Feed Analysis and Quality Test Technology (Fourth Edition). Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2016.
[18]	ROHWEDER D A, BARNES R F, JORGENSEN N. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science, 1978, 47(3): 747-759. doi: 10.2527/jas1978.473747x
[19]	郭瑞林. 作物灰色育种学. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1988: 26-40. GUO R L. Crop Grey Breeding. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 1988: 26-40.
[20]	郑伟, 朱进忠, 加娜尔古丽. 不同混播方式豆禾混播草地生产性能的综合评价. 草业学报, 2012, 21(6): 242-251. doi: 10.11686/cyxb20120632 ZHENG W, ZHU J Z, Jianaerguli. A comprehensive evaluation of the productive performance of legume-grass mixtures under different mixed sowing patterns. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2012, 21(6): 242-251. doi: 10.11686/cyxb20120632
[21]	贺文骅, 崔国文, 崔新, 刘省勇, 李冰. 紫花苜蓿与无芒雀麦不同混播比例对青贮品质的影响. 草地学报, 2017, 25(2): 407-414. HE W H, CUI G W, CUI X, LIU S Y, LI B. Effect of mix-sowing ratios of Medicago sativa L. and Bromus inermis Leyss. on silage quality. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2017, 25(2): 407-414.
[22]	宫珂, 靳瑰丽, 李陈建, 岳永寰, 王惠宁, 韩万强. 天山北坡野生无芒雀麦的表型性状. 生态学杂志, 2019, 38(9): 2615-2621. GONG K, JIN G L, LI C J, YUE Y H, WANG H N, HAN W Q. Phenotypic traits of Bromus inermis on the northern slope of Tianshan Mountains. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2019, 38(9): 2615-2621.
[23]	张凡凡, 于磊, 马春晖, 张前兵, 鲁为华. 绿洲区滴灌条件下施磷对紫花苜蓿生产性能及品质的影响. 草业学报, 2015, 24(10): 175-182. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2014467 ZHANG F F, YU L, MA C H, ZHANG Q B, LU W H. Effect of phosphorus application under drip irrigation on the productivity and quality of alfalfa in Northern Xinjiang. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(10): 175-182. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2014467
[24]	徐丽君, 杨桂霞, 陈宝瑞, 辛晓平, 乌恩奇, 青格勒, 朱树声. 不同苜蓿(品)种营养价值的比较. 草业科学, 2013, 30(4): 556-570. XU L J, YANG G X, CHEN B R, XIN X P, Wuenqi, Qinggele, ZHU S S. Comprehensive evaluation of nutritional values of different alfalfa species and varieties. Pratacultural Science, 2013, 30(4): 556-570.
[25]	白玉婷, 卫智军, 闫瑞瑞, 乌仁其其格, 代景忠, 王天乐, 姚静, 孙世贤. 施肥对羊草割草地牧草产量及品质的影响. 中国草地学报, 2017, 39(4): 60-66. BAI Y T, WEI Z J, YAN R R, Wurenqiqige, DAI J Z, WANG T L, YAO J, SUN S X. Effects of fertilizer application on the yield of forage and nutrient content in Leymus chinensis mowing meadow. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2017, 39(4): 60-66.
[26]	马啸, 周朝杰, 张成林, 孙铭, 郭志慧, 王小利, 张建波. 扁穗雀麦种质资源形态和农艺性状变异的初步分析. 草地学报, 2015, 23(5): 1048-1056. MA X, ZHOU C J, ZHANG C L, SUN M, GUO Z H, WANG X L, ZHANG J B. Patterns of morphological variation and agronomic traits in a worldwide sample of prairie grass germplasm. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2015, 23(5): 1048-1056.
[27]	孙铭, 雷雄, 张新全, 张成林, 伍文丹, 赵文达, 杨晓鹏, 马啸. 扁穗雀麦优良品系数量性状的变异分析及遗传参数评估. 草业学报, 2018, 27(1): 131-141. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2017260 SUN M, LEI X, ZHANG X Q, ZHANG C L, WU W D, ZHAO W D, YANG X P, MA X. Assessment of genetic variability in prairie grass. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(1): 131-141. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2017260
[28]	杨成前, 雷美艳, 杨天建, 余中莲, 全健, 杨娟, 蒲盛才. 白术栽培群体的主要农艺性状相关性及聚类分析. 分子植物育种, 2019, 17(17): 5852-5859. YANG C Q, LEI M Y, YANG T J, YU Z L, QUAN J, YANG J, PU S C. Agronomic character and cluster analysis in cultivated populations of Atractylodes macrocephala. Molecular Plant Breeding, 2019, 17(17): 5852-5859.

1.	王佳岚，李春杰. 不同水分条件下内生真菌对野大麦生长的影响. 草业科学. 2022(06): 1176-1184 . 本站查看
2.	刘叶飞，刘亚玲，韩慧杰，邱锐，周昕越，赵彦. 野大麦研究进展. 草原与草业. 2021(03): 1-5 . 百度学术

其他类型引用(4)

资源附件(0)

图(4) / 表(4)

计量

PDF下载量:
文章访问数:
HTML全文浏览量:
被引次数: 6

16份无芒雀麦种质资源生产性能与营养品质的综合评价

English

Comprehensive evaluation of production performance and nutritional quality of 16 Bromus inermis germplasm resources

参考文献

期刊类型引用(2)

其他类型引用(4)

计量

目录

参考文献

16份无芒雀麦种质资源生产性能与营养品质的综合评价

English

Comprehensive evaluation of production performance and nutritional quality of 16 Bromus inermis germplasm resources

参考文献

期刊类型引用(2)

其他类型引用(4)

计量

文章相关

目录

参考文献